John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I guess I have a more positive view of human nature than does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I do not believe that those businesses across America respond to worker safety challenges just because they are afraid of OSHA. Indeed, I believe employers across America genuinely care about safe working conditions for their employees. Indeed, the businesses I know recognize that skilled and valuable employees who become injured are a grave loss to them. That skilled and valuable employees who are lost to a job site because of an injury, they do not fear the OSHA penalty. Of course that is something that causes them problems, but they fear the economic impact they lose by the loss of that employee. I do not think it is appropriate to give them as a motive the belief that all they do is respond positively because of their fear.

Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it seems to me that we can improve the climate on job sites across America by this kind of measure. My brother is in the construction business in Tucson, AZ. He builds homes. And he, rather than having a working relationship with OSHA, lives in daily fear of OSHA. That is not the kind of model we ought to be encouraging. That is not the kind of structure which will enhance to the greatest degree possible worker safety in this country. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Indiana and I join him in his amendment. I think it does strike the proper balance for worker safety in this country, which is achieved through both incentives to improve worker safety and punishments for those who choose to be negligent, choose to have unsafe work sites, and choose to cause injuries by their own negligent conduct.

Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I think it is critically important for us to discuss this issue and to debate it here on the floor. I, myself, have very, very strong feelings about the OSHA Program, about the importance of worker safety, and about the IDEA Program and its importance in our society. But, Mr. Chairman, before I get to the substance of my views on why this amendment is so critically important, I must comment on the debate that has been going on kind of through the evening. That is the debate which most recently was advanced by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] that these amendments are somehow improper, and that it is somehow wrong to debate the priorities of spending in this Congress through amendments on the floor to an appropriation bill. Mr. Chairman, I resent that immensely. This Congress is here precisely for that purpose. We have had a budget agreement, some call it a tremendously historic budget agreement, with our President prior to today's debate. But that sets the broad parameter. The public policy within those numbers is decided here in the appropriations bill. The Committee on Rules set an open rule, as it has always done on appropriations matters, and I resent immensely any implication that these are other than meritorious debates on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I believe we have a duty to the American people to debate the question of how we spend this money here and now as the bill goes through. Of course, we owe some respect to the committee and the committee process, but the committee process does not tie our hands. We have a duty, we have a right, we have an obligation on each appropriations bill that comes to this floor to debate those priorities and to decide as a country where the monies we have to spend are to be spent. And that is particularly true in difficult times where ample funding is not necessary. So any implication that we should not be debating this and that we have to act as a rubber stamp is dead wrong. And in that regard, I would like to compliment the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], chairman of the subcommittee, who in meetings with myself and others prior to this debate made it clear that he fully welcomed a full-blown and exhaustive debate of the spending priorities in this bill. Mr. Chairman, at no point, at no point in those discussions did the gentleman ever say that we have an obligation to defer to what the committee did; we have a duty to accept what the committee has done; we have written it and it is cast in stone. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said the exact opposite. He said that we have every single right, issue by issue, to debate the priorities that are set forth in this bill as it comes to the floor. The gentleman commended us to do it and said he would not criticize us for doing it. That is what the process is for, and he welcomed the process. Thank goodness we have that process. Mr. Chairman, let me turn then to the issue of OSHA and to the issue of IDEA and this particular amendment. This amendment does a simple thing. It says that OSHA funding, as set last year, is in fact adequate to protect America's workers. And any challenge that says, no, it is not, and that those who advocate this amendment do not care about worker safety, I suggest is an unfair challenge and an unfair attack. The facts are as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] stated them. Worker accidents have been declining for 4 years straight. They have declined when the budget went down. They have declined when the budget went up. They have declined when the budget remained constant. I suggest it is unfair to characterize those who support this amendment as being unconcerned with worker safety. The statistics simply do not bear that out. Mr. Chairman, let me make another point. I believe in worker safety. I once worked as a construction worker and carried a union card. I was deeply concerned about union safety. But that was before OSHA existed, and I thought the State of Arizona and its safety officials did a good job of working to protect the workers on the job site where I was earning my living. But I think that OSHA has, on occasion, run amuck. When I first got elected to Congress, many contractors in the State of Arizona came so see me about OSHA's proposed fall standards, and they complained bitterly that there was no rationale and no reason; that the fall standards were not well written; that they were not thought out. Roofers came to me, as well as others in the construction industry. I have a brother in Tucson, AZ, who builds homes, and when he saw the first draft of those regulations he said, ``John, they're absurd. They make me try to protect from falls for people I cannot protect when they are not even up in the air. They make me protect framing contractors, when I have nothing that I can hook a safety net to.'' I think OSHA can be improved, but I do not necessarily think that every year just as the clock turns we automatically have to give it more money. And that brings me to the merits of this very worthwhile amendment. The IDEA Program is critical, and the parents in my district have come to see me about it.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, let me just recite briefly, also since my election in 1994, parents from schools throughout my congressional district have come to visit me. They have visited me about the issue of special education; both the parents of children who have special education needs and the parents of children who do not have special education needs. They have made a clear point to me, and that point is that at least the parents of those who have children who have special education needs think the Federal Government has done the right thing in IDEA and the goals it set, but the wrong thing in inadequately funding it. The parents of children who do not have special education needs have said the lack of funding for special education hurts them. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It ought not to be belittled as too small. It should be supported by each and every one of our colleagues as moving us in the right direction. And for those who say it is not enough, we will offer more amendments later in this debate when we get to the education title to move more money into IDEA fund. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment from the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh]. I hope my colleagues are paying attention to this debate because it is critically important that we understand what is going on here. This is a simple proposal which says are we going to put more money behind Washington, DC, bureaucrats? Or are we going to put money behind disabled children who need education? That is the issue raised by the McIntosh amendment, and I think it is a simple one and a straightforward one and one on which I urge my colleagues to pay attention and to support the McIntosh amendment. It is clear-cut. We can spend more money; indeed this bill does spend more money. It increases spending for wage and hour law enforcement. Wage and hour law enforcement is important. But I think the spending level we set last year was more than adequate. I do not know of grave abuses in that area crying out for a need. But on the other side, we can do as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] suggests in this amendment, we can move these dollars, an increase in wage and hour enforcement is not really needed, over to take care of the education of disabled children. It is a fundamental obligation of this Nation to take care of our disabled children. We wrote the IDEA program to ensure that States provide adequate education for those children who are disabled and who need it, but having written it, we have never funded it. We have heard that discussion here on the floor. It is not like wage and hour law enforcement. We are funding that now. But we are not funding the education of the disabled children across America. We are indeed demanding that States provide that education, but we provide less than one-quarter of the funding that should be there for the education of those children. That is the debate. Are we in favor of providing adequate education for disabled children across America or do we want more money to go into an already existing bureaucracy here in Washington and expand that bureaucracy by raising their budget? But it is an issue which reaches beyond the issue of the education of disabled children. It is a question of the education of all children. Because when we mandate that the States, as we do under the law, provide education for the disabled and we spell out exactly what they must learn and what they must teach and how much services must be provided, but then we do not provide adequate funding, that forces the States and the schools and the school districts across America to reach into the funding that should be there for other children, the not disabled children, and take money away from their education to provide education to the disabled children. So because we are not doing our job, we are not fulfilling our responsibility to provide the funding to educate America's disabled children as we have mandated, we are harming the education of all children. All Americans ought to be concerned about this. It is important that we both educate the disabled, but that we not do it by stealing money from the education for the not disabled, for the standard students, for the rest of the children in our schools. Yet by failing today, as we are, to provide adequate funding for IDEA, that is exactly what we are doing. We are stealing funding from the children's education of all, not just the disabled but the not so disabled as well. That is wrong. The McIntosh amendment moves $4.3 million, which right now would increase the enforcement of wage and hour standards into IDEA. It is simple, it is straightforward, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Do you stand in favor of expanding the wage and hour bureaucracy at the Department of Labor? Do you think we need to raise their budget over last year? Do you think we need $4.3 million additional in wage and hour enforcement or do you understand that we have an obligation to educate both the disabled children in this country and not to force States and local school districts to steal money from the education of nondisabled students in order to fulfill our Federal mandate. I urge my colleagues to support the McIntosh amendment. I think it is critically important to change this legislation.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHADEGG. The parents in my school districts do not want that. If the gentleman is genuine in saying that parents and teachers and students and local school administrators should control this money, then let me ask the gentleman, is he willing to strike from both the bill itself and from the report language all references to whole school reform?

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding, and I thank my friend the gentleman from California for at least yielding me some time. We did not get to continue in that dialogue, which I would like to. It seems to me quite clear that if the words ``whole school reform'' had no meaning and if the schools were then free to do what they wanted to do, then there would be no objection to striking those words. But those words are replete in the report and they are specified in the bill. What I think they say and what I think you cannot deny is that this money, this $150 million is going to be controlled from Washington. No, it is quite true that no one has to apply for the money, but that is the way Washington gets into public policy from the beginning and, that is, if you want the money, you must apply to the Federal Government and if you apply to the Federal Government, you must do whole school reform.

Mr. SHADEGG. Then the gentleman has no objection to striking the words ``whole school reform''?

Mr. SHADEGG. I will tell the gentleman that school reform is going forward aggressively in Arizona. On page 65 of the bill, it says quite specifically at lines 21 through 23, ``$150 million shall be available under section 1002(g)(2) to demonstrate effective approaches to whole school reform.'' Whole school reform is a term of art. We look then to the report and the report repeats that same language twice. At two different points it says, this money is to be appropriated, actually it is a total of $200 million, for whole school reform initiatives. He says whole school reform initiatives let them do anything they want. Yet they do not.

Mr. SHADEGG. I have a question.

Mr. SHADEGG. That may be his intent, but that is in fact not what either the bill or the report says. If I might just quote from the bill and the report, we will talk about why I believe what he is doing is exactly that, mandating from Washington DC the specific kind of reform which will be acceptable. By the way, he says it is important that we go forward with school reform. I will tell the gentleman school reform is going forward in Arizona.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the American people in my district are deeply concerned about a number of issues, and I am deeply concerned about some issues that we address in this legislation, issues which have not come to the fore until just the last few hours of this debate. Parents in America want their children educated. One of the things we do in this country is we pay taxes in the hopes that we will give our children the best possible education. Yet what is happening in education in America today is that there is a great debate going on about how we improve education. I have listened to that debate and I have listened to the citizens of my district talk about it. They want their children to get the best possible education because they care deeply about their children's success as they go forward. But they discovered one thing that is vitally important. It is something that I thought we heard in Washington, D.C., but it appears maybe we have not. They have discovered out in America that education policy cannot be set in Washington, D.C., that it is simply too far away from the living rooms and the family rooms and the bedrooms of the children studying at home to set education policy thousands of miles away here in Washington, D.C. So when I ran for the United States Congress, I ran on the promise that I would work to return to the local parents, teachers, students and administrators in the schools in my district the control of their education and their education dollars, so that those parents working beside the administrators in their schools could decide education policy for their children. For that reason, I got elected and I am pleased about that. But I have discovered in this bill something that gives me great concern. In this bill, we have decided that that is the wrong policy. In this bill, we have decided once again that the Federal Government should do the carrot-and-stick routine, that the Federal Government should decide what form of education reform works. Here is what we say in the bill: We say that we are going to reward those schools who pursue what is called Whole School Reform. And we even specify in report language that we will make this $150 million available, but only available to those schools who will follow the Whole School Reform model. And in report language, we set forth that they should either follow the school development program developed by Yale University psychiatrist James Comer, or the Success for All and Roots and Wings programs developed by Johns Hopkins University, or the Modern Red Schoolhouse program developed by Hudson Institute. So here we are saying, you local parents, you local administrators, those of you that are charged with educating your children and care most about their education, we will give you $150 million. You just have to jump through one Federal hoop. You have to agree to abide by one of these three programs. You have to spend the $150 million as we in Washington say it should be spent. Let me tell you, that is not what I was sent to Washington to do. That is not the kind of legislation that I believe America wants. I do not care if you are Republican or Democrat. I do not care if you are a liberal or conservative. I think this is an issue which transcends politics. I think American parents, whether they are liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, believe they know better how to educate their kids than some bureaucrat thousands of miles away in Washington, D.C., or some professor at the Hudson Institute or Yale University or Johns Hopkins. Yet we are saying, as a United States Congress, there is $150 million in this bill which you parents may have, but only if you let us decide on the education policy. I think that is wrong. I think we are making a grave mistake by including that kind of policy in this bill. It is not what the American parents want. They trust their teacher. You sit back and think about it: The one person you have to trust in your life is the teacher that your child spends a good portion of every day with. This last Tuesday was the first day of school for my kids. I took them both to school. I have a 15-year-old and an 11-year-old. I had met their teachers before. I care about them, and I trust their teachers, but I have never met a single professor from Yale University or Hudson Institute that I want deciding how my children get educated. I trust the PTA at my school and the administrators at my school, but I thought we, as a Nation, had moved beyond this idea of dictating Federal education policy in Washington, D.C. Yet in this bill, I hope that my colleagues are listening and I hope their constituents are listening to them, we break that promise and we set education policy in Washington, D.C. That is dead wrong. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following: School Development Program Mission and Vision of the School Development Program The School Development Program is committed to the total development of all children by creating learning environments that support children's physical, cognitive, psychological, language, social and ethical development. Our vision is to help create a just and fair society in which all children have the educational and personal opportunities that will allow them to become successful and satisfied participants in family and civic life. Core Beliefs of the School Development Program We believe that ``it takes a whole village to raise a child,'' noting especially that: children's most meaningful learning occurs through positive and supportive relationships with caring and nurturing adults; parents are children's first teachers; all parents, and staff members, and community member, regardless of position, has an important contribution to make towards improving students' education; and in order to bring out the best in children, adults must interact more collaboratively and sensitively with each other on behalf of children. We believe children: should be at the center of the educational enterprise; are capable of higher learning; learn through various pathways: physical, cognitive, psychological, language, social, and ethical; and who develop well learn well. We believe that teachers: work in supportive environments which maximize their ability to teach and prepare students for life beyond school; and develop positive relationships with parents to make the necessary bonds for effective teaching and learning. We believe school communities: must be structured to promote collaborative decision making in order to create a culture of inclusion; should promote learning as a lifelong process; should embrace cultural, linguistic and ethnic differences to enhance the educational process for all people; use data from all levels of the system--student, school, and district to inform educational policies and practices; should view change as an ongoing process guide by continuous constructive feedback; design curriculum, instruction and assessment to align with and promote child and community development and high content area standards; provide administrators with the support they need to lead and manage schools; and promote organizational synergy among school boards, educators, and parents. A Brief History and Summary of the School Development Program The School Development Program (SDP) was established in 1968 in two elementary schools as a collaborative effort between the Yale University Child Study Center and the New Haven Public Schools. The two schools involved were the lowest achieving in the city, had poor attendance, and had serious relationship problems among students, staff, and parents. Staff morale was low. Parents were angry and distrustful of the schools. Hopelessness and despair were pervasive. The Child Study Center staff--social worker, psychologist, special education teacher, and child psychiatrist--provided the traditional support services from these disciplines but focused more on understanding the underlying problems and how to correct them. Problems were identified on both sides-- family stress and student underdevelopment in areas necessary for school success, as well as organizational, management and child development knowledge and skill needs on the part of the school staff. Because of pre-school experiences in families under stress, a disproportionate number of low-income children presented themselves to the schools in ways that were understood as ``bad,'' under-motivated, and demonstrating low academic potential. The behavior, in fact, reflected underdevelopment, or else development that was appropriate on the playground, at home or other places outside of school, but inappropriate at school. The school staffs lacked training in child development and behavior, and understood school achievement solely as a function of genetically determined intellectual ability and individual motivation. Because of this, the schools were ill- prepared to modify behavior or close the developmental gaps of their students. The staffs usually responded with punishment and low expectations. Such responses were understandable given the circumstances, but they usually led to more difficult staff-student interactions and, in turn, to difficult staff-parent and community interactions, staff frustration, and a lower level of performance by students, staff and parents. Even when there was a desire to work differently, there was no mechanism at the building level to allow parents, teachers, and administrators first to understand the needs, then to collaborate with and help each other address them in an integrated, coordinated way. This led to blame-finding, fragmentation, duplication of efforts, and frustration. There was no sense of ownership and pride in the school. The kind of synergism that develops when people work together to address problems and opportunities could not exist. The model took shape in response to the conditions in the schools. Dr. Comer and his colleagues, working collaboratively with parents and staff, gradually developed the current nine-component process model (3 mechanisms, 3 operations, and 3 guiding principles). In the first category is (1) a School Planning and Management Team representative of the parents, teachers, administrators and support staff; (2) a Student and Staff Support Team (formerly called the Mental Health Team; and (3) Parent Team. The School Planning and Management Team carries out three critical operations: the development of a (4) Comprehensive School Plan with specific goals in improving school climate and academic areas; (5) staff development activities based on building-level goals in these areas; and (6) periodic assessment which allows the staff to modify the program to meet identified needs and opportunities. Successful implementation of the School Development Program requires several important guiding principles and agreements. All the adult stakeholders agree to use (7) a ``no fault'' approach to solving problems. This allows school teams to use all their time and energy on problem solving. Many groups get bogged down and are unable to move forward because blame creates defensive behavior and conflict. When people use ``no fault,'' they can speak up without fear of attack or blame. The School Development Program uses (8) consensus decision making rather than voting as the way to make decisions. Discussions keep the developmental needs of children in mind. One of the principal benefits of consensus decision making is that it minimizes ``winner-loser'' behavior and a variety of negative feelings that are common when decisions are made by voting. Participants on the School Planning and Management Team (9) collaborate with the principal who is often the team's leader. Team members cannot paralyze the principal and on the other hand the principal cannot use the group as a ``rubber stamp.'' In some cases, a staff member rather than the principal serves as a leader of the governance and management team. When this happens, it is often after all involved have become comfortable with the process, but sometimes it occurs at the outset. This works when it is a genuine arrangement to promote leadership from within the staff, and not as an act of disengagement. With this arrangement, it is important for the principal to be present and fully involved both in meetings and in facilitating the process. These nine components, developed in the 1968-69 school year, continue to make up the essential elements of the School Development Program. a brief summary of school development program effects Past efforts to document the effects of the School Development Program have been consistent with our philosophy that educational improvement embodies academic as well as personal and social growth. To document the effects, a combination of three research strategies are used: (1) quantitative (e.g., Surveys), (2) qualitative (e.g., our ethnographic protocols), and (3) theory development. These strategies have been employed to document academic effects, behavior and school adjustment effects, self-concept, and our school climate. Studies conducted by the School Development Program and other researchers provide evidence of significant SDP effects on school climate, student attendance, and student achievement. SDP effects are usually first manifested in the improvement of the school climate, indicated by improved relationships among the adults in the school, better collaboration among staff members, and greater focus on the child as the center of the education process. Research showed that schools in which the SDP guiding principles (``no fault'' problem solving, consensus decision making and collaboration) were followed consistently, there was a significantly greater decline in absenteeism and suspension rates compared to the district as a whole. Comparative studies of SDP and non-SDP schools reported significantly higher self competence, self-concept, and achievement for SDP students than for non-SDP students. Qualitative analyses of more than 130 interviews of parents, students, teachers, principals, and other school personnel from ten schools indicated (a) improved parental and community involvement, (b) strong, positive climate, (c) increased team work and greater coordination, (d) greater focus on child-centered issues for comprehensive school planning, and (e) greater top-down and bottom-up management. These analyses also showed that the Student and Staff Support Teams (formerly called Mental Health Teams) focused primarily on prevention rather than crisis management. These teams established stronger linkages between schools and communities in order to better facilitate services to students. The three SDP structures (School Planning and Management Team, Student and Staff Support Team and the Parent Team) and the three guiding principles served as vehicles for bringing the school and community together to resolve conflicts and reach solutions.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I am not interested in an argument on the issue. I am interested in the policy behind it. Perhaps I am misreading either the bill's language or the bill report. But let me tell the gentleman what they say. Because lots of times we have these general debates where we talk in great banal generalities but we never get down to the specifics. His proposition is that this language does not mandate any specific type of school reform.

Mr. SHADEGG. I am not even against all Federal involvement in education. What I am against is us telling schools how they have to reform. We have public schools in Arizona, and they are a tremendous success.

Mr. SHADEGG. Absolutely not.

Mr. SHADEGG. I am not objecting to giving them the money, I support giving the money, but I do not support adding the strings which say, ``You'll get the money only if you do whole school reform, i.e. Washington decides.''

Mr. SHADEGG. Let me just make this point clear. I do not want the money to be raised at the States, sent to Washington and given back with no controls. I want the money to stay in the States, because my parents want that. They believe they can spend it better than any Washington program. Short of getting to that, short of getting to leaving those moneys at home in Arizona, or Illinois, or Wisconsin or California, then I like the concept of block grants, because there is a simple point here. I do not know that whole school reform is the right idea, and I trust the parents in Arizona to shape education in Arizona. That was an issue when I campaigned. It was an issue before the 104th Congress and it is an issue before the 105th Congress. That issue is, are we going to control education reform and education policy from Washington or are we going to let parents in America, out there working with their teachers and their school administrators, decide? This bill has Washington deciding that. If it did not, then it would not say you get the money if you pursue a whole school reform initiative.

Mr. SHADEGG. It is called block grants.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about corporate welfare and it is not about the Federal budget. It is about proper land management of our forests, our land. If you owned a piece of land, would you let someone else come in and build a road on your piece of land and let them control where that road was, what the quality of the road was going to be, and whether the road was going to be permanent or temporary and receded? Absolutely not. That is what this debate is about. It is not about corporate welfare. It is about who manages that decision. I talked to professional foresters today about this issue. They make it very clear, that the purchase road credit program allows them to manage these decisions. I listened just a few minutes ago to one of my colleagues come to the floor and say, if you are a fiscal conservative or if you are an environmentalist, you will support the Porter-Kennedy amendment. The absolute opposite is true. If you are a fiscal conservative, you would understand that there is no subsidy here. The timber companies do not keep the roads. We keep the roads. Recreationalists use the roads. And our professional forest managers need to design where those roads go, the quality of the road and whether it is a permanent or a temporary road. It is not also about the environment. If we allow the timber companies to build the road with their own money, they will bulldoze the cheapest, quickest road they can get in and do as much environmental damage as may happen. If we design the road through the purchase credit program, then we can protect the environment. This is a debate full of red herrings. It is a debate that misses the point. The fundamental issue here is that the Forest Service should be designing these roads and we should be forcing timber companies to pay for them. The current Forest Service credit program does that. If we abandon this program, the forest timber companies will bid, will estimate the cost of the roads at the highest possible figure. They will reduce their bid for the timber by that amount of money. The net effect will be less money to the Federal Treasury. It is not about reducing a corporate subsidy because there is no corporate subsidy. The fact is right now the bid price includes the cost of building the road. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Porter-Kennedy amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.